User talk:John K

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12 /Archive 13

Contents

Note[edit]

I replied to you here, if you're interested. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)[edit]

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been a long time![edit]

I noticed your comments over at Talk:New Chronology (Rohl), & thought I'd drop by to say hello. The 'pedia has gotten so large our paths don't cross any more. -- llywrch (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I think I'm the only old-timer left. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Louise, granddaughter of Charles X[edit]

John, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princess_Louise_Marie_Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_of_France where I tried in a mile-long explanation (!!!) to answer your question as to surname *d'Artois* vs *de France* for Louise Marie Thérèse, daughter of the duc de Berry. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lord Forbes[edit]

John you created an article called Lord Forbes way back in 2004. Should it not be at Baron Forbes? --PBS (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I did not know that. --PBS (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal warning[edit]

One more personal attack on me and I will seek to have you blocked. Sarah777 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who[edit]

There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut | 11:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire[edit]

I have no argument with you - I am sorry that I don't still have the few books I found. My main concern is that many people today consider Charlemagne the fonder of the HRE for ideological reasons. I am aware that Otto looked back to Charlemagne as an antecedent but clearly he did so for ideological reasons. Myabe my problem is that there is no satisfying discussion of the meaning of these words in the context of struggles for legitimacy. MY fear is that most Wikipedia articles are naive realists and do not see things in their political context. They think that there is this real "thing" called the HRE and Charlemagne was in it, or he wasn't. When the issue is more complicated. Am I wrong?

I am willing to defer to your knowledge. But I am sorry that Johanna Kemp is not still around, as I also respected her knowledge. here is what she wrote on the matter:

I've removed all the references to the Carolingians, because they just weren't Holy Roman Emperors. It's not even arguable. They styled themselves either Roman Emperors or Emperors of the Romans. Their Empire was in no was organized like that of the later HRE, nor were their administration or institutions the same. The fact that some of what eventually became the HRE had once been ruled by the Carolingians is beside the point. The HRE arguably starts with Otto I, because it was under his rule that it began to take shape in the way we know it. The 'arguable' comes in because there is some evidence that Otto himself looked back to Charlemagne as a model. There is also evidence, however, that the Ottonians looked to the Byzantine Emperors as well. In any case, Otto is a much safer beginning point, although it was not till later -- AFAIK, not to the Salians, that teh title HRE comes into normal use. This means there is clean-up to do in terms of the Carolingian emperors, who will need to be changed to something else -- this is especially sticky, by the way, because the Carolingian emperors themselves seldom used the "Roman", preferring merely the title ' Imperator '. I've been wading through Carolingian legal documents all day, as it happens. JHK 02:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I could have cleaned it up, but I don't have the time. I used to contribute a great deal, and got tired of fighting lame battles. Also, since I didn't write the original errors, I don't see why I should clean up every piece of someone else's mess. It would be like going in and trying to fix the mess that is the Charlemagne article. Some of it is not bad, but it's misleading in many places. By the way, AFAIK (and I have to say I know a decent amount -- my PhD thesis was on the Carolingians), there is no current accepted authority that argues for continuity. Most of those arguments come from late C19 and early C20 history that tried to show a great continuous history of a German Nation. And I don't know of any reputable history that considers the Spoletans as anything more than interlopers. Althoff, who is perhaps the most accepted authority on imperial traditions and the Ottonians at the moment, certainly doesn't see continuity, except in some of the imagery and ritual. Even then, the Ottonians ignore the Carolingian emperors -- the look directly to Charlemagne. JHK 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that you could spend some real time on the article and revise it so that these points, to the extent you find them falid, are not just there but clearly explained?

I just do not think it is a simple matter of adding Charlemagne's name or not. If we add his name even if we use some nuanced terms like "Although not considered HRE by historians, Otto considered Charlemagne an antecedent" I am still concerned some people will just think that there is a real continuity where there wasn't, and that these names have simple meanings divorced from the politics of legitimation. That is why I feel that IF we put his name in the lead, we need to add more, not in the lead but in the body, about how various people's claims to being Holy or Roman were highly ideological and that the success of the Ottonian enterprise had as much to do with institutional innovation, or even more to do with institutional innovation, than with continuity with Charlemagne (or Theodosius!!). Is this a reasonable point? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


I am not entirely satisfied with what you propose, in part because I thought I read - and John, i can SO easily be wrong - that Charlemagne refered to himself as Roman Emperor, but not as "Holy" Roman emperor. There are several variables here: the precise title used; whetheror not the Pope was inolved are just two. My preference would be to leave the intro as is, saying most historians consider Otto to be the first Holy Roman Emperor even though he id not use that title, because he was the founder of what would soon be called the HRE.

Then I would propose a section, either in the history section or before it, describing the power vacuum with the fall of the Western empire, and the fact that with its demise the Church was one of the few stable institutions. Thus, warlords who sought to establish institutionlized dynasties or regimes regularly refered to the Roman Empire or to the Catholic Church as props for legitimation. For exmple, Charlemage refered to himself as Roman Emperor ... and so on - just a paragraph or two about the environment which made certain moves available and appealing. Then something about how the Ottonians are properly considered the HRE not merely because ofthe invocation of Rome or the associaion with the pope, but because of the creation of new forms of institutionalized governance that functioned for over a thousand years. Request/proposal: could you write such a paragraph perhaps incorporating material written by JHK in what I pasted above, and then put it in the body? I still be ieve such a paragraph or two would do far more to educate our readers than just throwing Charlemagne's name in (or keepeing it out) as a sop to a partiular political position. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Louis XV[edit]

If you still care - which you probably don't - Louis XV was duc d'Anjou before his uncle and father died. -- Jack1755 (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the explanation on Mary II and France! I would love to do a Ph.D. in history one day...

You're invited![edit]

KeysToCommunity.jpg

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
September 12, 2009

Time: 3 pm
Location: University City, Philadelphia

RSVP
(view/edit this template)

NOTE: The date and time of this meetup has been changed to accommodate other regional activities.

The purpose of this meeting is to finalize our plans for the Wiki Takes Philadelphia event. We'll discuss logistics, establish jobs, and coordinate with participating groups.

The floor will also be open to discussing other projects relating to the Wiki and Free Culture movement.

Afterward at around 5pm, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Earl of Mayo[edit]

Please stop edit warring on this article. Why, exactly, do you feel this article is improved by a sea of redlinks? Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: wiki takes philadelphia[edit]

Please sign up here. Thanks. Mblumber (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

John. I see you apologeticness didn't last very long. You have just posted a personal attack on me; one which I removed as per advice from Chillum. Please do not restore it again. Sarah777 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum actually said, "If when you remove a personal attack you are reverted, then do not remove it again". (01:01, 14 August 2009 in his talk page archive). MickMacNee (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Ha. Wonderful. john k (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Chillum has a less than 100% record in the judgment department. McNamee, your personal attack on me is not forgotten. Sarah777 (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Sarah, you're the one who cited Chillum to support your actions. john k (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Who the fuck is McNamee? Does he play for Celtic? Cos he's getting humped if he is. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
John. Because I agree with one piece of advice Chillum gives hardly means I need to share his religion, now does it? Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
MackNamee, please don't write "f***" on Wiki, especially on John's page. He is most likely a refined person. A concept foreign to you I wager. Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with profanity. I'm not overly delicate about such things, so don't stop on my account. I will say that I'm generally not a fan of purposely getting people's names wrong, as you are now doing with MickMacNee and were previously doing iwth me. As to the "piece of advice" from Chillum, it was not at all what you said it was. He said you were free to remove personal attacks if you like, but that you should not re-remove them if somebody adds them back in. He was not advising you to remove personal attacks at all, just saying that it was arguably acceptable. To the extent that he was giving you advice, it was not to do something which you did in fact do - removing supposed personal attacks a second time when somebody has put them back in. john k (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You did get Masem's title-name wrong here [1]. I was out for the evening and thought it's be all over and done with. Disappointed to say the least. Tfz 00:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
JK, sorry for misspelling your name; that was actually an error not deliberate. In your case. I think. I spotted your question re the Triangle of Civility. It was something I found on Chillum's page; a "how to" measure comments for their civility quotient. Copy of it on User:Evertype's page. Or there was. Sarah777 (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
And Philly in September - that sounds damned inviting if you are stuck on a rainy rock in the North Atlantic! Sarah777 (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

personal page[edit]

Just a suggestion --- perhaps you would like to move your personal page User:John Kenney/Elephant (wikipedia article) to User:John Kenney/Wikipedia:Elephant. Since undoing a move is somewhat of a hassle, I'm not going to do it for you, just suggest it to you if you would like to do it. Honestly, I cannot envision this personal page ever becoming an article, but I can see it surviving under Wikipedia:Elephant. Take it for what it's worth. However whatever (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - August 2009 Newsletter[edit]

The August 2009 issue of the Novels 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. Alan16 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re your second complaint[edit]

I did start marking the edits as minor; sometimes I forget. I shall try to remember. The way you used the word "seriously" in your admonishment could be construed as verging on uncivil. Please dont leave me any more messages.Willy turner (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Apologies for any incivility. john k (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian chronology[edit]

Bad indeed. In fact, there's a general problem which is that in most of our articles some editor has chosen a particular set of dates and we generally ignore the fact there are other dates. Thus we get someone asking how Sneferu's reign can have been over before he started building the Red pyramid, for instance. This is made worse by navboxes at the bottom of Pharaoh articles that allow for only one set of dates. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OR and apologies[edit]

A discussion about my archiving of your comments is ongoing at my talk page. Any feedback would be appreciated there. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested reading on OR[edit]

If you want a good laugh you should read Ottava Rima's editing philosophy page (previously his "Mentorship guidelines"). It begins: "Below is a list of guidelines that I have committed myself towards" including:

  • In order to avoid WP:CIVIL problems and to work on WP:Consensus, I shall seek to avoid conflict whenever possible. Instead of judging others, I should focus on issues... should seek to be a peacemaker, and not an instigator. I should keep my mouth shut and open up my ears more often.
  • In order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and fights, I will explain my position shortly and not argue with others if they disagree. If they ask questions, I shall respond politely and not judge the questioner. I should seek to be inclusion and not exclusive, and consensus involves everyone and not a majority that overruns a minority.
  • In order to stay neutral and refrain from committing personal attacks, I shall speak politely, not judge other people's words harshly, assume good faith, and believe that everyone can and wants to contribute to a discussion.

Maybe you should add some comments there as he invites you to do. IIRC Ottava evaded a community ban last year by agreeing to be put under mentorship. Once the mentorship period expired, he was back to his old ways. He now thinks he has carte blanche to insult any user who contradicts him in any way. This guy will never admit he is wrong on any topic ever. His friends on Wikipedia will try to prevent any ban. --Folantin (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(I must apologise for inadvertently bringing him to the page. He has a long-standing grudge against me. I try to avoid him as much as possible but unfortunately I edited a page on his watchlist which happened to mention Persia. As you can see, he knows nothing about the history of Iran). --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Folantin, I've had that page watchlisted for a very long time. You didn't bring anything. If anything, you came to the page simply because I pointed out that according to it you were 100% wrong so you decided to edit it out of existence. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

MoS[edit]

this series of edits goes against the MoS. The MoS is clear - we use only last names (after first use of full name) and we keep the same use of names throughout. MoS requires "Cambridge" and only "Cambridge". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Fraid I can back that up, even though it's technically incorrect. We do things the wrong way here, but any attempts to change that have failed. Good example: Lord Denning is at Alfred Denning, Baron Denning rather than something along the lines of Alfred Baron Denning of Whitchurch in the county of Hampshire. Gets my goat (although it was previously at Tom Denning, Baron Denning. Eugh.). Ironholds (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea about what MoS says, but if that is what it says, it is utterly incorrect about actual Wikipedia usage. We do not call Lord Palmerston "Temple," we do not call the Duke of Marlborough "Churchill" after 1689, we do not call the Duke of Newcastle "Pelham-Holles," we don't call Lord Castlereagh "Stewart." This simply isn't how any wikipedia article on a peer has ever been written. john k (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
At this, you should consider that such articles were mostly started in the early years of Wikipedia, when MoS and NPOV were rather poorly developed, and that their creators are/were generally the same people. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You claimed: "See for instance the featured article John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, which referst to its subject as "Churchill" before 1689 and "Marlborough" thereafter."
Your actions instead did: this - "Cambridge was born" to "Alexander was born". You took a last name and turned it into a first name. Your own example uses a last name. Thus, you don't even follow your own example. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Anglicanism on List of Christian Denominations[edit]

Can I suggest that it is abusive to reopen a discussion in the confidence that the consensus is unlikely to change, and to claim while advocating such a change, that you aren't going to advocate it? If you really don't want to advocate it, I would ask you to delete the comment; if you do want to advocate it, then you can again force the discussion, as you seem to want. However, it is entirely unclear just what your motive is. Can you please make it clear, rather than lobbing a grenade in and ducking away? Tb (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

User:Ottava_Rima/Persian_Empire - my condensing is half way done. I have not put up paragraphs for the lead (4), paragraphs for the term (2), paragraphs for the imperial system/explaining "shah" and the rest (2). Over all, it should be about 50k after those are added in and the next sections condensed. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The last two sections of your history look like what I would propose for the last two sections of my own. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Attorney General for England and Wales[edit]

I've significantly rewritten this article, which I note you prepared the list of holders for. I've moved the list to a separate article for size reasons, and will probably turn it into a Featured List, but I can't find sources for many of the early office holders. Where did you find that list? Ironholds (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. Haydn is unfortunately notoriously inaccurate, in regards to early dates and names, although he provides a good general guide to an office. If you don't mind I'm going to remove the early ones that I can't find any other reference to, at least until a copy of Haydn can be picked up. I've got an original at university, actually, which will be accessible in a few weeks. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Rita Jenrette sourcing issues and claimed titles[edit]

I submit that Wikipedia does not always accord people the titles they claim, as with the members of this category [2]. My review of related Wikipedia articles dealing with pretenders led me to the language I used in the article, which I think is more consistent with Wikipedia's general practices than the less specific version (note the articles I cite on the talk page). Part of the problem with this article comes from the fact that Jenrette and her friends have repeatedly attempted to add exaggerated claims to the article; Jenrette herself at one point characterized herself as a "celebrity centerfold" in Playboy, even though there's no such thing, and recently has added claims about her career as a realtor that contradict all the available news reports and the public record. If her new husband actually is who she describes him as being, there ought to be a truckload of reliable sources, but so far all that have been cited are his own website and a self-published genealogy page. (Maybe I wouldn't take such a hard line if Jenrette and her partisans weren't so quick to fling insults rather than engage in reasonable dialogue about sources.) Hullaballoo, Lord Wolfowitz (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

universities & nationalism[edit]

John, if you'd have some time, please look at http://books.google.cz/books?id=VsFjlKKWn6EC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

it shows very nicely why there is not possible to say Charles University is either German or Bohemian or Czech or whatever else. Hope this helps to understand. Please refer to page6 & page214 Ibrahimibnjakob (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, I've been watching...I don't get the point of that section either. I'll take another look. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)[edit]

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention of "Romania" in the lead of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire article[edit]

Thank you very much for your support in that debate. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started![edit]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage of 'Parthian Empire'[edit]

Hy there, first of all I want to thank you for moving the article towards its proper name Parthian Empire. I think that the case was quite evident from the start. However you have forgotten the article's talkpage (which remains at Talk:Arsacid Empire). Could you move it towards Talk:Parthian Empire asap? Thanks Flamarande (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that is bothering me. I was intrigued by the name "Arsacid Empire" so I took a look around. I remembered an ancient empire (a major power of the east) which invaded ancient Greece, won (but also "lost") the battle of Thermopylae and after some centuries was invaded and conquered by Alexander the Great. What was it called again? Persian Empire (as in Persian wars)?

English is not my mother language but I do know what 'common name' means. It means use the names taught in school, written in books, and shown in the History Channel. 'Achaemenid Empire' is not the common name, 'Persian Empire' is the common and even famous name of this nation.

Should I follow the previous procedure (propose a move on the article's talkpage as I did with the Parthian Empire, wait for the opinion and votes of other users, etc) or is there some procedure to bring this issue to the attention of "higher" authorities? Flamarande (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC) PS: I find this issue very troubling and I'm sorry for being blunt and honest but: what the hell is going on in Wikipedia?

The talkpage, don't forget the talkpage, please. Flamarande (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One simply can't argue against tireless preachers. I stated my argument (simple common use) at Talk:Persian Empire. As far I can judge this matter the 'other side' defends more or less that "the name 'Persian Empire' can possibly be used by a handful of nations and therefore should not exist as a seperate article" (conviently it's a redirect towards Achaemenid Empire - if the other side were true to their arguments it would have to lead to a disimbigation page).

The fact and arguement that in common use 'Persian Empire' clearly applies to a single state was simply avoided again and again to a frightening degree. I placed a proper move request at the Achaemenid Empire's talkpage and I believe that I have done my duty already. Flamarande (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


(Sigh) I believe that common use (and common sense) is going to lose this case. Noone is putting in question that 'Persian Empire' is the common name for that state (besides Ottava but IMHO he is clearly a fool, a chameleon, and a lawyer). They are just avoiding the issue completly and defending that 'Achaemenid Empire' is a more precise name which will avoid any possibility of confusion. One only has to ignore that the average reader probably never heard that name at all (as all English mass media is quite happy in using 'Persian Empire').

I have no doubts whatsoever that the veredict will be a 'No consensus' ruling. So be it; Wikipedia will be the loser in the end but it isn't our fault. A likely side-effect is that no article with the title 'Persian Empire' will be created. A 'listing of all the historical states' is utter nonsense as the common use of that name designates a single state.

I managed to rescue 'Parthian Empire' but failed to do likewise with the 'Persian Empire'. We will have to lick our wounds, keep a careful watch over the articles, and hope that an increasing number of ppl start to question the name issue. It will probably take a couple years but the Persian Empire will rise again :). Flamarande (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"ref name"[edit]

Hi John, I see you're still fighting the good fight on the Byzantine Empire article...whenever I get bogged down in something like that I remind myself that even real-world academia is full of pointless black holes. Oh well. I was wondering if you had ever come across "ref name" template, and what you thought of it...I have been ignoring it for years but these recent edits pushed me over the edge. Are there actual real referencing systems like that, or is this one of those things made up for Wikipedia? This seems totally bizarre to me. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know either, other than removing them whenever I see them, but someone will just add them back, I'm sure. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST admins[edit]

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia[edit]

KeysToCommunity.jpg

You're invited to the
Wiki Takes Philadelphia
October 4, 2009

Time: 12 pm
Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market)
University City, Philadelphia

RSVP
(view/edit this template)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, October 4, 2009, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

Register your team here

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Mysore and Coorg FAC[edit]

Hi John, It's been a year (or two) since we last interacted on an Indian-history related discussion ... Your feedback at History of Mysore and Coorg FAC is greatly appreciated. Feel free to be completely honest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

All the issues (except additional alt-text that I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day) have now been dealt with. I welcome comments from you at the FAC review or on the article talk page. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for peer review[edit]

Hi John, I'm looking for good editors to conduct a peer review of an article I'm thinking of submitting as a featured-article candidate. It's 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla. In particular, I'd be interested to know whether there are any factual errors, glaring omissions of key sources or significant points of view, and whether it's a fair overview.

If you have time to look at it, even if it's just a glance, it would be most appreciated. If it's inconvenient, please feel free to ignore this request. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)[edit]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Visit me?[edit]

Hello John! You are cordially invited to my user page for a little visit if you would like to know my basic ideas and opinions about when to use English (pre-1900) and when not to (post-1900). I think our stances might actually coincide pretty well. It feels important to me that we understand each other, at least, though we may agree to disagree at times. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

East German FMs[edit]

Dear John, can you keep an eye on the East German Foreign Ministers situtation. Another editor removing these from the German FMs has appeared now. Thanks! Str1977 (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. President[edit]

Hello, President Kennedy. I was editing an article about a sports star when another editor informed me that listing the baby's name was in violation of Wikipedia policy, WP:BLPNAME. I was shocked because I did not know of this policy.

I looked at Family of Barack Obama. BLPNAME says that non-notable children must not be named. President Obama's children have been noted as non-notable in their AFD. There are 2 choices that follow policy:

1. Declare the children as notable.

2. Declare they are not notable and remove their names. So the wording might read "President Obama and the First Lady have two children, XXXXX and XXXXXX.

I don't care which. However, violating policy is wrong. With all the press about them, #1 might be the logical choice but, again, I don't care.

What do you think, President Kennedy? PresChicago (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing[edit]

Can you please look at the sourcing in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandell Creighton/archive1 on the British Historian Mandell Creighton. I have some concerns. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

action needed[edit]

Dear administrator, Please do some administering at the WP:RFPP board to unprotect Malia Obama. The basis for unprotect has been proven and should be done. Let me write the article. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest![edit]

Henry Allingham in 1916.jpg

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)[edit]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edit on George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron[edit]

"we shouldn't be promoting incorrect forms, even if they are occasionally used by the ignorant" — Thank you, thank you, mille gratias tibi ago! Sizzle Flambé (/) 05:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Graham Greene.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Graham Greene.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)[edit]

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello John Kenney! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 13 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 2,016 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Pierre Mauroy - Find sources: "Pierre Mauroy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  2. Michel Barnier - Find sources: "Michel Barnier" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  3. Hubert Védrine - Find sources: "Hubert Védrine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  4. Hervé de Charette - Find sources: "Hervé de Charette" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  5. Roland Dumas - Find sources: "Roland Dumas" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  6. Maryon Pittman Allen - Find sources: "Maryon Pittman Allen" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  7. Richard Alan Cross - Find sources: "Richard Alan Cross" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  8. Jean François-Poncet - Find sources: "Jean François-Poncet" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  9. György Lázár - Find sources: "György Lázár" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  10. Jan Krzysztof Bielecki - Find sources: "Jan Krzysztof Bielecki" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)[edit]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Scope of British government pages[edit]

I created Conservative Government 1979-1997, spanning both Thatcher and Major, which is too big. Tryde broke that up by general election (it appears) at 1983, 1987, 1990 and 1992. List of British governments divides it into 1979-1990 and 1990-1997, both of which redirect to my first page, which I've just proposed for deletion. What, in your opinion, are the appropriate points of division? Choess (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The current series is split at the Thatcher resignation as well as at elections. Looking at the precedents on List of British governments, I'm inclined to lump them back into 1979-1990 and 1990-1997, but I'd be grateful for a second opinion. Choess (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll drop a note and ask Tryde, but I don't think this is terribly controversial—s/he seems to be the only other person actively working on them. Choess (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)[edit]

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Memphis[edit]

Hey john: Old topic of discussion, but I'd like to get Memphis as a dab page instead of its current position as a redirect to Memphis, Tennessee. If you could give your opinion at Talk:Memphis, I'd be very grateful. I need somebody to comment before I get WP:BOLD. Cheers! Night w (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review[edit]

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 20 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *YES! 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sporcle[edit]

Ha, I just realized how many times I've encountered you on Sporcle! I guess that's not surprising, it seems like the kind of place Wikipedians would enjoy. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Evangelical Church in Germany[edit]

I'm not sure you noticed but there is again a discussion going on whether evangelische kirche in deutschland should be translated or not. I'm a little bit fed up to be honest. another user changed the name of the ekd article and all its member churches. they all appear under the german name now. he did that without giving any reason, calling it bald, but wants now justification for undoing his move (see Evangelical Church in Central Germany). first he said that evangelical should be translated as protestant and sold the german form of the word as a kind of compromise/solution. Now he and an other user say kirche or landeskirche are "concepts" that can't be translated. I think you wre right to point out that several churches in the English speaking world are called the same way. maybe you want to have a look at the discussion? --Mk4711 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know wikipedia rules that well. In the case of the North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church: Would it be okay to move it back to the English name? There isn't much of a discussion there. Or would that be an edit war? I've already undone the move and then it was moved again by motroos. Probably it's better to find a general solution on the EKD discussion page. I just don't really understand what we are waiting for. I guess you know because you are an administrator (I think you are). --Mk4711 (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Now another user has taken the initiative... You are right. This really is madness. Maybe I should move United States of America to Estados Unidos, without any prior discussion of course. I'll call that "bold" as motroos did... And then I'll ignore all the reasons for moving it back. That's apparently the way it works. --Mk4711 (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)[edit]

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John K. You have new messages at Mk4711's talk page.
Message added 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mootros (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia[edit]

KeysToCommunity.jpg

You're invited to the
Wiki Takes Philadelphia
April 11, 2010

Time: 12 pm
Location: Drexel Quad (33rd and Market)
University City, Philadelphia

RSVP
(view/edit this template)

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, April 11, 2010, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Coordinator elections have opened![edit]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada -- your opinion sought[edit]

Hi.

Please have a look (as an editor who seems interested in the article) at Monarchy of Canada, where there is currently some disagreement about wording in the lead. Thanks. -- 205.250.72.215 (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)[edit]

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV[edit]

For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Wikipedia should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."

The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth. He has teamed up with user:QuackGuru who is claiming that there is another policy called "state facts accurately" which he believes means that certain claims do not have to be attributable to any source (since they are "facts" - i.e. a total subversion of "verifiability, not truth."

Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, please strike all your false statements you made against me. QuackGuru (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
QuackGuru, please don't use my talk page to communicate with people who are not me. john k (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough,thanks for contacting me, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

favor[edit]

Can you comment here: [3] and in the next section, which is entitled Comment? I am asking you to comment solely on policy, not content. This discussoon sorely needs the cmments of others who really know policy. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)[edit]

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil peer review[edit]

Good morning, John! A friend and colaborator of mine requested a peer review on Pedro II of Brazil with the goal of nominating the article to Featured. If you have any interest or spare time, could you take a look in it and share your thoughts? Since I saw you in its talk page, I thought you would like to help. Thank you for your time! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)[edit]

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You've Been Mentioned[edit]

It was suggested to me that I note for you that I mentioned an edit of yours in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. You were not singled out for any particular reason, and I found nothing particularly problematic with your edit in question, at least in terms of being a ground for you being recalled as an admin. Sorry.--Milowent (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

King James[edit]

I am reposting here a response to your comments on the James VI article: George I was not a "King" of Hanover, merely an Elector, the Kingdom of Hanover was not created until 1814 . And to your earlier point regarding Edward VII as Prince of Wales, that title is an honorific of the heir to the throne of England, much as the title Duke of Rothesay is to the Monarch of Scotland, neither are titles of sovreignty, as indeed neither was the position of Elector in the Holy Roman Empire, a vassal to the Emperor. As to your insinuation that Scotland was a marginal backwater during this time is just another example of the sort of faux history perpetuated by various English commentators, and is a racist slur that the Scots have endured ever since the union of the crowns. Furthermore, King Jamie did return to Scotland in 1617 in an attempt to harmonise the structures of the two very different churches within his realms, he also continued to speak in Braid Scots, . As to your point that as King of Scotland, King James had no influence in Europe, why was he given the hand of Anne of Denmark, daughter of one of the arguably most powerful monarchs in Northern Europe, Frederick II of Denmark? And to cap it off, a quick google search returned 118,000 for "James VI of Scotland", yet just 92,900 for "James I of England". Brendandh (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Brendandh (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Vichy France[edit]

Bonjour John K:

In the discussion[4] concerning the inclusion of "Israël" (!!!!!) in the territorial "possessions" of France or under its protection or whatever in WWII, I suggested removing the list of such which was added to the infobox this past May 29[5], and which is rather confusing as things were not that clear cut in the period 1940-1944, and were changing, with, for instance, governors of certain territories changing side or being replaced or, as the case was with Japanese-occupied Indochina which is difficult to put into the category of Possessions constituents, with, to boot, listed in their modern names, which makes the list totally incompréhensible for that period.

Hoping this long sentence makes sense to you, as this is the best I can do being in a rush in the middle of a heatwave and not taking the time to re-read my prose.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY IN WW1[edit]

Go to the talk page of the Austria-Hungary article. Do you try to dipute the historic fact that the Eastern front of Entente was Collapsed by Central powers in ww1? Read about that: [[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talkcontribs) 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa[edit]

Hi you obviously have a working knowledge of User:Blablaaa there is a discussion Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Blablaaa you might be interested in commenting on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rioni of the City of Rome[edit]

There is a discussion on whether articles on the rioni of the City of Rome should follow the naming convention for Italy, or should be treated differently. I have notified you as you were previously involved in the discussion on a Naming convention for Italian cities. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/July#Italy: rioni of Rome. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Succession.....[edit]

Sorry. I didn't mean to muddy the waters. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WQA[edit]

Hello, John K. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Phoon (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC on cities proper list[edit]

We definitely need to have more people involved in the discussion so we can hash out how best to define the list. A formal RFC is probably not needed at this time. The better course of action may be to not rebut every point as this seems to just generate endless walls of text. --Polaron | Talk 13:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to List of cities proper by population, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Removing the (in this case United Nations) definition for scope and content of a list, along with all the references, is an egregious act of vandalism. The fact that this act is perpetrated by an administrator who should be familiar with Wikipedia policies, exacerbates this act. This will be your only warning. BsBsBs (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Tuscany[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John K. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John K. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John K. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John K. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

About Tavolara[edit]

This is an answer about your doubt. I'm not able now to provide any references, but I'll look for. Bye! --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 12:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Empire map[edit]

Hello. I have seen your irks about the Spanish empire map, and I would like to comment you some issues:

  • Firstly, the sovereignty is applied rather to the capability to control a territory that to subduing peoples, hereby the sovereignty can apply also to unpopulated areas.

In commons here, I put the references to depict the map. I can assure that there has no been ridiculous double standard to shape the map, and I have tried to do the map the most suitable to the references, following the policies of wikipedia. Maybe you should have read these references before suggesting that the map is depicted arbitrarily.

  • The problem of locating the Spanish presence in North America was a motive of uncertainty a year and a half ago, when I depicted the map. If the map had to be based on references, I could not invent where it seemed that the Spanish could have controlled the territory in my particular criterion, but I had to find references, well then, I found it with the Treaty of Adams-Onís.
  • In the south it was clear that the Spanish established a defensive line in order that the Mapuche did not enter into the territory of the viceroyalty. In fact in Chile there is a region that is called La Frontera.

The accomplishment of the map is not a perfect work, there are areas that they can lead to perplexity but, what am I going to do if the references lead to that point?, which I am not going to do is to invent what I come into my mind. Trasamundo (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Monarchial titles for articles[edit]

I rekon they've got the correct idea at the George VI of the United Kingdom & Juan Carlos I of Spain RMs. A gradual change of articles & acceptance, will bring about overall acceptance. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

J. Warren Keifer[edit]

You asked for evidence here. If I understood your question correctly, I think I found the eveidence and responded there. Mojoworker (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hesse-Kassel[edit]

If others don't read into it deeply (as I intially didn't), they may get the impression that you prefer Hesse-Cassel. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded at my talkpage. It easier when the discussion is in one spot. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the following articles up for a move under your proposal:
I don't understand why these articles are titled this way to begin with. I know nothing of the landgraves of Hesse-Kassel, but the Wikipedian nomenclature is highly confusing to me. For example, nothing in William's article indicates he even was a landgrave, yet there were landgraves of Hesse-Kassel named William. So why is the article Landgrave William of Hesse-Kassel about somebody who was not a landgrave of Hesse-Kassel? Even when this is cleared up for me, I still think the articles should likely be moved. If I knew where they should be I'd have proposed moves already. Srnec (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

NCROY[edit]

The supports and opposes seem to be running roughly even for your current proposal. I prefer the "King of X" formulation, and would have been there with you had I not been on a WikiBreak. Given that progress seems impossible while the current guideline is in place, what do you think of trying to get rid of the convention altogether if yet another reasonable alternative is nixed? -Rrius (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started![edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Opposition Party (US), type I and type II[edit]

I am new to editing, with an interest in 19th Century US and Southern history. Stumbling onto the Opposition Party, US article, I looked more deeply into Martis, then crafted my edit for the page. So, I get your objection to the earlier listing, and I want to do something about it.

A casual reader of Martis in his Introduction essay can easily miss the 'Opposition' party in the major party discussion and the 'Opposition' party in the Third Party section. They are not cross referenced to 'disambiguate', as they say in the wiki world.

Your essential point is precisely correct. Everything political was coming apart. Even the churches were splitting over slavery in various theological degrees. That's not as intellectually elaborate as European theological strands, but we do what we can with what we got.

I will want to revisit this subject again, as I stumble onto or re-read passages in monographs. Lots of confusion in the literature since scholars seem to lucky dip into Congress only as a sidebar to their main thesis...whereas, in my view,Congress, established in Article I of the Constitution, is 'the first branch' (book title). So Martis is my strarting point...Would it make sense to elaborate the article with mini-bio 'vignettes'? (Pardon my French.)

Do you still think the amended article should be deleted?

In my own little family, I blew up a couple of Thanksgiving dinners as a college kid by asserting there were EVER any pro-unionists at any time in any numbers south of the Mason-Dixon line, ever, well, white people. So I may be misunderstanding amidst forty-year-old flash-backs. But I gotta say, your "There was not and never has been such a thing as the "Opposition Party" as a formal entity in the United States" sort of has the same feel. "The Lost Cause", Sir, and all of that.

It's hard to prove a negative, and it turns out that there WAS a "last gasp" (Martis) effort among former Whig and American candidates in the South to organize a political party in opposition to the southern Democrats, without being painted as 'disloyal' to the South', lovers of blacks, abolitionists and promoters of servile (ala Haiti) insurrectiton. And your idea of making a more broadly conceived article of Southern opposition MOVEMENTS could even be expanded to the 'Cooperationists' opposing the Secessionists in 1860-1861. William Freehling documents that some of these really hoped that a delay would lead to reconciliation.

Anyway, since I think most of your points were correct, Could you return to the site and eyeball dates and narrative and such? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Grand Duchy of Tuscany[edit]

Are you interested in pursuing this GA nom? The nominator appears to be inactive. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I have time for such things. john k (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Aggressive tone[edit]

I find you aggressive, belligerent and antagonistic toward me, way outside of what should be in a normal debate about issues. That may be all my fault or all yours or a combination, we'll never know, I guess. I have really tried not to act that way toward you but to stick facts, as I interpret what sources say, sources that to me are very reliable and clear. But I find the debate climate repulsive and would like to stop. May I cordially suggest we avoid each other from now on? SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify[edit]

Would it be much of a hassle if you would add in whether you "Support" or "Oppose" the proposal to remove "philosophies like left-libertarianism" from the article. This is a very picky bunch that might not understand your intention, if it's not there in black-and-white. Thanks, if you can. BigK HeX (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

John, I just left a clarifying comment over there addressed to you. Also, to illustrate what I mean, consider that the term "Christianity", like libertarianism, is also used broadly in English as well as specifically. In the broad sense, it includes Mormonism, but it is never used to specifically refer to Mormonism. That's why Mormonism is not included in the article at Christianity.

For the same reason, because libertarianism, though when used in the broad/general sense it includes "libertarianism socialism" and "left liberalism", the term libertarianism is never used to specifically refer to those ideologies, just like Christianity is never used to refer specifically to Mormonism.

Even though Mormonism is a variant of Christianity (using Christianity in a broad sense), it is not included in the article on the specific religion of Christianity. And, so, even though libertarian socialism is a variant of libertarianism (using libertarianism in the a broad sense), it too should not be included in the article on the specific ideology of libertarianism.

Agree or disagree, I hope that helps you better understand the point of the proposal. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. In the first place, people certainly do use "Christianity" to refer to Mormonism, although perhaps less than they would for any other Christian denomination. In the second place, Mormonism is mentioned in the article on Christianity - there is a specific discussion of Mormon (and Jehovah's Witness) christology, for example. john k (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
No, people do not use Christianity to refer specifically to Mormonism. Mormonism is used to refer to Mormonism specifically. Christianianity is used to refer, much more generally, to all religions that worship Jesus Christ.

I don't see any references to Mormonism in that article. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you even mean here. Try "Latter Day Saints" for discussions of Mormon beliefs in Christianity. john k (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh! Missed that. I guess I better find a better example...

Okay, how about... Cat. Now, that term, in the broad sense, refers to the entire feline family, but the editors of that article chose to limit the scope of that article to be about just the domestic cat, presumably because they determined that the the domestic cat is the primary topic for "cat". I'm suggesting that "right-libertarianism", rather than the "libertarianism in the broad sense that includes libertarian socialism", is the primary topic for libertarianism. Again, if you google "libertarianism" in any context (general, UK, AUS, books, scholar, whatever) you will find that to be rather obvious. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC) --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense. I'm not sure why an article called Libertarianism can't deal with both meanings, though. I'm also unclear how you've determined that right-libertarianism is the primary topic. Let me add - many references to libertarianism are going to potentially apply equally to the broader and the narrower meaning. john k (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Do you agree that narrowing the scope of Cat to the domestic cat is not violation of WP:NPOV or WP:DUE, and that, by the same reasoning, narrowing the scope of Libertarianism to "right-libertarianism" is not a violation of either also? That's one of the points in contention.

If I could be convinced that your last sentence is true then I would withdraw my proposal. Will you agree to support my proposal if I could convince you it is false? To that end, please google "libertarianism" and let me know what percentage of uses of the term (which have to do with what it means - obviously a reference in a meaning-independent context like "List of words that being with LIBERT" would not count) in secondary sources (which tell us much more about actual usage than primary sources like encyclopedias) in the first few pages potentially apply equally to both the broader and narrower meaning? Let me know at least one (preferably a few) that you think qualifies, and I'll take a look. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The domestic cat is obviously the primary topic. I do not think it is clear that the one meaning of libertarianism is the primary topic, and I don't think a google search is a good way to determine such things. We should be looking at reliable sources, not raw google results. john k (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. We seem to agree that the issue ultimately rests on whether the political ideology sometimes referred to as right-libertarianism (but usually as just libertarianism, as in David Boaz' book) is the primary topic for "libertarianism". Yes?

But, if not google results in say books and scholar, exactly how do you look at reliable sources to determine which use of the term is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box"? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I mentioned this discussion in an ANI that was filed against me here. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SCOPE[edit]

Do you think it's worth trying to get consensus to bump WP:SCOPE up to a guideline via RfC? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your PhD![edit]

Congratulations, Dr. John K! Just want to point out the good news comes on the birthday of Gandhi. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in on that one. Well done! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. john k (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal names[edit]

As promised, letting you know about my proposal to retitle Victoria of the United Kingdom (now at that page's talk). Also, what do you think about Stephen - should it be at Stephen, King of England (as recently moved unilaterally), given that we're told his true title was "King of the English"?--Kotniski (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Stephen, King of England is fine. "King of the Peoples" forms should be used for modern monarchs that consciously adopted such forms (like "King of the Belgians," "King of the French," "King of the Hellenes") but not, I think, for medieval monarchs based entirely on Latin forms not usually translated literally into English. john k (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I tend to agree with that.--Kotniski (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Junto and Barons[edit]

I am in the process of writing an article on the Army Plots of 1641, in that year the cabal that of which Pym was a prominent member was known as the Junto (and according to the OED is the origin of the term in English). I noticed that you had made a comment way back in 2006 on Talk:Junto. This is a heads up that I am going to propose some rearrangement.

It would also help me if you would express an opinion about the use of Baron and Lord in the text of an article Talk:Walter Hungerford, 1st Baron Hungerford of Heytesbury as a knowledgeable third opinion would hopefully have close the style issue. -- PBS (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuity from Constantine VI to Charlemagne ... dubious[edit]

Why do you think that? I'm curious ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ayyubid dynasty[edit]

User:Karimoglu has changed referenced information concerning the Ayyubid dynasty. Changing Kurdish to Turkish despite two requests[7][8] to use the talk page and ignoring evidence I posted on User:Karimoglu's talk page.[9] Can you inform this individual how to edit properly? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Sardinia[edit]

I was wondering what you think about a three-article solution to the Sardinia problem: a survey article at Kingdom of Sardinia, an article on the Savoyard state at Piedmont–Sardinia, and an article on the medieval Papal creation at Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica? I find the current article highly misleading. I was working on a lead at User:Srnec/Kingdom of Sardinia and was wondering what you think of it. (The bottom paragraph is a quotation of a GooglBook source.) If you have the time. Srnec (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)[edit]

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England[edit]

I would appreciate your opinion about the proper name of (Princess) Henrietta (Anne) of England, see Talk:Princess Henrietta of England JdH (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for restructuring vs. attack[edit]

Hello. On an article you have edited in the past Alternate_successions_of_the_English_crown and editor User:Hrafn appears to have more than just an interest in improving the content of Wikipedia at heart. He has (at least) TWICE made personal attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlternate_successions_of_the_English_crown&action=historysubmit&diff=399129636&oldid=399129494

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAlternate_successions_of_the_English_crown&action=historysubmit&diff=399132122&oldid=399130453

Admittedly, I also made a personal attack, accusing him of being more emotionally interested than encyclopedically interested, for which I was warned. There does not appear to be any warning directed towards User:Hrafn. His list of tags on the article itself DOES appear to have stepped beyond reasonable bounds(eight in all):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alternate_successions_of_the_English_crown_&action=historysubmit&diff=39913106&oldid=395132934. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

I went ahead and nominated this article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternate successions of the English crown. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

you're invited[edit]

as a historian with an interest in European nobility, I invited you to take a look at these two articles, and the related information in the AfD debates. Both articles are related, need to be improved, and might benefit from your insight and particularly your knowledge about historical sources.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Martin_O'Donnell

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vice_Great_Seneschal_of_Ireland


ReidarM (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternate successions of the English crown[edit]

In regards to this article, might I suggest reading what Leo van de Pas states here[10]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What's your point, exactly? Do you think van de Pas is a reliable source? What are you arguing based on van de Pas? john k (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
As Leo points out, Edward did not ascend the throne due to his father being king of England. Instead he gained the throne through conquest. Making his legitimacy irrelevant and the article in question, based on a television program, pseudo genealogy. Leo also mentions William the Bastard(Conqueror) as an example that legitimacy is irrelevant when the throne is taken by force of arms. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't get the point. Edward claimed the throne by conquest and as the legitimate heir-general of Edward III. Whatever his own claims, at any rate, if his marriage was invalid, then Clarence's descendants were heir to both of his claims, regardless of his own legitimacy. Such claims are not "pseudo-genealogy," because Warwick was obviously viewed as an alternative claimant to the throne; his sister Matilda was eventually executed in part because of her own potential claim to the throne; and the Earl of Huntingdon was considered as a possible successor to Elizabeth I in 1560 because of his descent from Matilda. One can, of course, make arguments as to why their claims were not valid, but it's not true that the idea that they had such claims is post facto "pseudo-genealogy." And, of course, van de Pas himself admits that the genealogical trail from Huntingdon leads us eventually to Michael Hastings. I basically agree with you that the claim that Edward IV was illegitimate has no relevance to who the king was, and, indeed, except possibly for some toying with the idea during Richard III's reign, it was never a major consideration at the time, either. But regardless of that, Clarence's descendants were viewed as potential claimants to the throne for nearly a century after Clarence's own death, and the genealogical line from him to Hastings is, as I understand it, pretty air tight. To the extent that van de Pas is an expert of any kind, it is as a genealogist (I find his site to be mostly excellent for genealogy, but it's self-published, so probably not good enough for wikipedia), not an expert on 15th century legal theories about inheritance of the crown. His opinion holds no more weight than yours or mine. And van de Pas is far too absolute about this. Edward IV, as I said before, claimed the throne both by right of conquest and by virtue of his descent from Edward III; Henry VII claimed it by conquest, by virtue of his own descent from John of Gaunt, and, eventually, by virtue of his marriage to Edward IV's eldest daughter. If the Yorkist claim had vanished into thin air at Bosworth, why bother marrying Elizabeth at all? Why execute Warwick? It's no use talking about de jure claims; certainly it's no use arguing that the reigning monarch is also the de jure monarch. If there's political support for a claimant, the strength of their genealogical claim is irrelevant - arguing against it on legal grounds is pointless. On the other side, since 1066 every claimant to the English throne has had some genealogical basis for their claim - Robert Curthose, Maud, Arthur, Bolingbroke, Richard and Edward of York, Richmond, Simnel, Warbeck, the de la Poles, Jane Grey, Mary Stuart, and the Jacobite pretenders had claims of various strengths and genuineness, but their claims of royal descent were important to their claims to the throne. Pretending that such claims were not notable because one can make an argument for the legal claims of the de facto monarch is ridiculous - it's not our job to decide who the de jure monarch was. john k (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II[edit]

I share your concerns at that article. I regret having supported the last RM & have been having second thoughts about the article's intro & infobox. IMHO, atleast 1 of the 3 areas-in-question should display the United Kingdom on its own. There's too much downplaying of the UK, in that bio article. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal label origins[edit]

Hi John K, I’m creating a new article User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of England, and I’m seeking opinions/consensus on their origins. re There are a number of anomalies, such as the difference between a ‘blue’ and ‘white’ label, in reference to whether there is a difference between ‘Heir apparent &/or presumptive’ –and- ‘Prince of Wales.’ These anomalies stem from the label argent given to Thomas of Brotherton &c, as heir apparent to King Edward I. Was this the origin of a white label? Were Thomas and his descendants Princes of Wales (Mowbray was descended from the earls of Chester &c) ? Also, can you clarify the relationship between the arms of Mowbray as Thomas’s heir, with the arms of Richard II? Thanks for your time, knowledge and considerations. Can you please reply on the articles talk page. (NB: I've also asked GoodDay & OperaHat) Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about heraldry, so I don't think I can help. I do think that your draft needs to be much clearer on what the subject of the article is - it took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. Also, sources. Thomer of Brotherton was never heir-apparent. He was heir-presumptive to his brother, Edward II, for a few years at the beginning of his reign. He was never prince of Wales, nor were his descendants. john k (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Most Interesting Man[edit]

I responded to you query (albeit slowly) with some ideas on the image. In general, I think it can/should be any of the ones where he's sitting at the table, making conversation and saying "I don't always..." or "Stay thirsty" Purplebackpack89 05:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you still planning on posting a new picture? Just wondering Purplebackpack89 20:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving Albert II of Germany[edit]

Please request for a move before you move Albert II of Germany; I've reverted it. Also you might want to bring up the other King of the Romans who are under "of Germany".--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you prefer the current title? I moved it three months ago and nobody but you objected. Is it a totally procedural objection or do you prefer Albert II of Germany on substantive grounds? john k (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Time Person of the Year[edit]

Howdy JK. Good luck in trying to convince Mies that Elizabeth II's closer association with the UK (compared to the other Commonwealth realms) shouldn't be hidden (or IMHO censured). He's worked too long & hard across Wikipedia, to remove such things (regrettably, I supported such edits in the past) & he's not about to restore them. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no illusions on that front. I keep hoping that if I keep it alive, other, previously non-involved editors will join the discussion and agree with me. I see now that Miesianiacal is actually the same person as Gbambino (I should have realized this sooner, I guess), which means that this has been a heretofore successful one-man crusade for five years or so now. Sigh. What made you change your mind about this, btw? john k (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
One man crusade? You give me far too much credit. Please don't forget to share it amongst the other editors who've seen fit to put facts above personal biases, including, for a time, GoodDay (though, his opinion does shift on an almost regular basis). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've came to my senses. Royal weddings continue to be held in the UK. Elizabeth II continues to hang out in palaces at the UK. Her successor's coronation will be held in the UK. Due to her residency, the UK has no Governor General. Anyways, the Elizabeth II article, was my turning point. Along with the article's title being RM'd (which I now regret having supported), the 16 commonwealth realms has replaced the UK and 15... on both the intro & the infobox. I don't mind having British hidden on Canadian articles, Australian articles, New Zealand articles etc etc. But, I do mind it, when it's hidden from other areas. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was very impressed by yours of 8.17 on 2nd January. And the response from "Miesianiacal" at 2.48 on the 3rd sounded suspiciously like the towel. Jolly well done. Opera hat (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Meilleurs vœux ![edit]

File:Tour eiffel feu artifice.jpg

Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nailed it...[edit]

And made my favorites list. Well done. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

United States disambiguations[edit]

In one of those naming guideline discussions, you said: "I suspect you will be unable to find very many places that are unique within the United States, but ambiguous with places outside it". I went looking for placenames with "(United States)" in the title, and was unable to find any towns or cities (but didn't look very hard - it was mostly political parties and military units). I did, however, find St. John's College (United States), which led me to Saint John's College, St. John's High School, and Saint John's University (also Saint John's). A bit of a mish-mash of comma and parenthetical disambiguation there, and some other disambiguation variants as well. Is there a standard in this area or not, and if not, what would normally be done? Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NCGN[edit]

Initial indications are that neither Dohn Joe's idea for mediation nor my idea to identify broad principles is going to be accepted. As I look through the various options at WP:Dispute resolution, I don't see any choices left... besides the last resort. I've never done that, though in retrospect it makes sense since I know the similar TV episode naming disagreement was decided by arbitration a few years ago. Might be time to review how to go through all that, eh? Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Last_resort:_Arbitration. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that the arbitration committee is extremely, extremely reluctant to take up content disputes. john k (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil FAC is now open[edit]

Empire of Brazil is now a Featured Article candidate. Since you're part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries/Empires bureau, your opinion (either as support or oppose) is welcome. Here is the page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How to title an article[edit]

In order to address the argument that without specific naming conventions article titling would be chaotic and unpredictable, I've attempted to describe the process of determining a title that clearly shows that usually specific naming conventions are not needed. I'm asking a few select individuals to look at it before I open it for general review at WT:TITLE.

If you could take a few minutes to review it and let me know what you think, I would really appreciate it. Do you think we could incorporate this or something like it into WP:TITLE? Thanks. Here is the link: User:Born2cycle/how2title. Please leave your comments on the talk page of that subpage, User talk:Born2cycle/how2title. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject Novels initiative[edit]

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

History of U.S. city naming[edit]

I've started another subpage, this one about the history of the U.S. city naming guidelines and conventions. It's still in very rough form, but I thought you might be interested in looking at what I have so far. The last thing I just added was a new section on the individual history of page move proposals and actual moves of certain especially volatile city articles. So far I've only done Chicago. I think Boston, Philadelphia, New York City should be covered, perhaps Los Angeles and San Francisco. Anything else? Anyway, check it out. Thanks. Comments/suggestions or even contributions would be much appreciated. User:Born2cycle/USNChistory --Born2cycle (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Note of appreciation for your comments at Talk:Elizabeth_II[edit]

Hey John,

Just wanted to say that I really appreciate your comments at the EII article. It seems so brazenly obvious to me that listing out countries as the current lead does is wrong headed. I couldn't agree more with your " Mentioning all sixteen realms is the violation of NPOV, because it violates due weight" comment.

I don't really understand the mindset of the opposition here. I figure they are either hyper-focused on legal nature of the monarch, or they want to WP:PEACOCK the article by making EII sound as if she reigns over the world. Either way, I'm a little disappointed by how the RfC is going.... Best, NickCT (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your message -
I largely agree with all your points.
re "Some of these people, I think, basically don't know much about the issue and find Miesianiacal's arguments superficially convincing" - It's interesting to note that if you go through the user pages of some of the respondents who are calling for maintaining the current lead, you'll find that some (e.g. User:Night w, User:The C of E) seem to display pro-monarchist/nationalist sentiments. Depressingly, I think "some of these people" aren't so much convinced by his arguments as they might simply share his warped POV.
As a side-note; I had a good friend once who was a fervent monarchist. I found the mindset rather fascinating. It seemed so anachronistic and out-of-place, and I think, in a way, my pal knew this and relished in the fact. He took himself seriously, though no one else did.
If we care enough to pursue this, we should probably cease bemoaning the void between our opponents' ears, and turn instead to determining practical measures to work around them. NickCT (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
We are obviously not going to get reasoned behaviour at the article for a while. Do you think we should ask for it to be fully protected in the meantime John? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010[edit]

The Bugle.png




To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Anglicization of Portuguese names[edit]

John, I saw a message of yours written a long time a go at John VI of Portugal complaining about the name being spelled in English, not in Portuguese. Could you tell me what happened? If there was a discussion about it? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Baron Latimer/Latymer[edit]

Like you -- I was looking at the two pages.. Baron Latimer and Latymer -- Exactly what is the difference between Latymer and Latimer? If they are the same, why are there two different pages? Also, that would out these people whom are being claimed as the current de jure Barons as the barony remained in abeyance after the 4th Baron Latimer (John Neville) had no male heirs, until 1913, when the abeyance was terminated in favour of Francis Money-Coutts, who became the fifth Baron. He was the only son of the Reverend James Drummond Money and his wife Clara Maria Burdett, fourth daughter of Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet, and claimed the peerage as a descendant of Frances, eldest daughter of the Hon. Lucy Neville, third daughter of the fourth Baron Latymer/Latimer. As of 2009, the title is held by the fifth Baron's great-great-grandson, the 9th Baron who succeeded his father in 2003. Any help would be greatly appreciated in this matter... -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February[edit]

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

Style question about "The Hon."[edit]

I realize that this question probably belongs at MOS:HONORIFIC but I couldn't find anything relevant there, and I looked in the archives there and found enormous controversial discussions about such things and don't want to ignite a debate. I just want to know the correct way to present the honorific properly in the first line (not the title) of the article. (The style guide says not to use them "inline" but it is clearly the custom to present all titles, etc. once at the very beginning of the article.) So: which of these should the younger son of an earl be at the beginning of the article?

  • Rear-Admiral The Hon. John Smith
  • Rear-Admiral The Hon. John Smith
  • Rear-Admiral The Hon. John Smith
  • Rear-Admiral The Honourable John Smith
  • Rear-Admiral The Honourable John Smith
  • Rear-Admiral The Honourable John Smith

I assume that there should be links for Rear-Admiral (or should that be "Rear-Adm."?) and The Honourable, and all subsequent usage should be "Smith." Thanks for your help! Laura1822 (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say only the name should be bolded, but I'm not sure. john k (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:House of Este[edit]

Are you content with my amendments to the House of Este article? Eddaido (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Cairns, 1st Earl Cairns[edit]

Various sources (Cracroft's Peerage, 1911 Britannica, Men-at-the-Bar, etc) give his year of birth as 1819, not 1810. I have edited the article. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I reverted your edit of the Treaty of Versailles[edit]

Sorry John for reverted your edit on the Treaty of Versailles. You were right, Belgium is not an "unofficial ally", but quite official. I reverted the edit back to yours - take care... Dinkytown talk 21:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hugo of Windisch-Graetz[edit]

Please check out Talk:Mariano Hugo of Windisch-Graetz. Because there has been a lot of vandalism (including puffery) in this article, some editors seem to think he is altogether bogus or that his position has been inflated. If you have info or sources that would help establish his bona fides you may want to weigh in. FactStraight (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, John K. You have new messages at Talk:Raúl Ibáñez.
Message added 21:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Simon Dedalus for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Simon Dedalus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Dedalus until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Latin American Monarchies task force[edit]

Hi, John. I sent a similar message to User:Domino theory but I have doubt he will answer. I would like to create a task force devoted to 19th century Latin American monarchies. How could I do that? Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the Philadelphia Wiknic![edit]

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area this Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 5 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together in the Azalea Garden, just behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art 39°58′05″N 75°10′59″W / 39.96801°N 75.183156°W / 39.96801; -75.183156

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

Smallbones (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahnentafels[edit]

Hi! You might be interested in this. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Great French War"[edit]

Proposed deletion of Great French War[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Great French War has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hi, saw your comment on this article's talk page. Thought you might like to weigh in. LouisDesaix (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Great French War[edit]

Great French War has been nominated for deletion here. I'm notifying you of this discussion because you commented on the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Lutheran World Federation[edit]

Hi, I just wanted you to know that I reverted your edit to Lutheran World Federation. It didn't seem necessary to me, since Church of Lippe is still a red link. If you had a good reason for making that edit, it would be helpful if you would provide an edit summary or comment on the talk page to clarify your reasoning. Thanks!! Cognate247 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

British Chief Ministers, from 1660[edit]

Chief Ministers of England (1660–1721)
This stems from a suggestion which you made here five years ago. What do you think? It largely follows your list, though not entirely. Unfortunately I don't have any sources for it. BartBassist (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm gradually adding notes to it, to explain my rationale. I will either remove or notate Belasyse and Pembroke. I think I have made it clear that Townshend was basically running things 1714–16, and that Halifax, Carlisle and Walpole were titular First Lords only; nonetheless, it seems clear that by this point the First Lord was considered the titular figurehead of the administration (as was the case for Wilmington in 1742, who was dominated by Carteret but is nonetheless considered titular leader), so I won't replace these three with Townshend. BartBassist (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello John K! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Steve Perry[edit]

Check out my reply on the Journey talk page. Dave Golland (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire[edit]

Happy New Year! Could you please help out by commenting here? It's the old debate, who was the first Holy Roman Emperor, Charlamagne or Otto. Do you know the authoritative mainstream sources i.e. who are the real expert historians who have addressed this? I think the article would be more stable if we have better (and more recent) sources. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Nightwatch (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael McDonald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear John K,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lord Goderich[edit]

I've lately been editing F. J. Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich, of which I see you are the principal editor. If you cared to give the article as it now stands the once-over and amend ad lib it would be esteemed a favour. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Greetings. Llywrch suggested you might be a good person to contact about participating in a peer review on the Josephus on Jesus article. Please take a look if you have time. Ignocrates (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Joyce[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article John Joyce has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable; see move discussion on talk page

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Schwede66 20:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you are a rather experienced editor. Believe me, I don't like prodding articles that were created by editors who have been around for a long time and have a huge amount of experience. Maybe the chap is notable; I just can't see it the way the article is written. Schwede66 20:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The bio you cite at the afd should be mentioned or used as a ref in the article, or some other referencing should be used. The article in it's present state is decently done from a style standpoint, but needs refs. INeverCry 22:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

R&N Userbox[edit]

Hello, John K! You can add the new userbox for the Royalty & Nobility taskforce, {{User WikiProject Royalty and Nobility}}, to your userpage! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Senators[edit]

You brought up a good point about the order of Senators. Therefore, I've changed a couple articles to list the Senators explicitly by seniority. —GoldRingChip 15:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Voting at the Bratislava article's talk page[edit]

Hi,

Since you've shown some interest about the naming convention for Bratislava in the past, you might want to take a look at the recent development there (especially the part where PANONIAN suggests the complete removal of all but the modern Slovak name of the city). Thank you -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:4th Duke of Marlborough.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:4th Duke of Marlborough.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited William Pinkney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James A. Bayard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Presidents of Arab Republic of Somalia[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Presidents of Arab Republic of Somalia, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Runehelmet (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "John Donne". Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Historical Question[edit]

Hello John K!

You have been recommended for me by another user, who think that you may be able and willing to answer some questions of historical facts that I have, and as you write on your presentation that you are willing to answer questions, I hope that you would be willing to do so for mine.

My questions are as follows.

Question 1: If a married nobleman would like to acknowledge his illegitimate children in 1730s France, would that give them any rights? By acknowledging, I do not mean legitimizing them: I rather mean just admitting that he is their father. Louis XIV officially recognized his children with Madame de Montespan, and it seems that they were some paperwork. So my question is: was there some sort of legal procedure for a man who wished to recognize his fatherhood, any paperwork of some kind? Or was the acknowledgement simply an informal affair with no other consequences than informal social ones?

Question 2: The 1730s was a period when the law was different for nobles and non-nobles. Did an acknowledged illegitimate child have more rights, if both of the parents were noble?

Question 3: During this period, adult unmarried women were placed under guardianship under nearest male relative, I believe? Who was the legal guardian of an acknowledged illegitimate daughter, after the death of her parents? Was it the legitimate son of her father, her half brother?

I hope that you are able to answer my questions, or perhaps give me an educated guess? Thank you in advance! --Aciram (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and your tip. When it comes to the third question, though, I suspect that the law would not differ so much between times or countries in Europa before the mid 19th century? How was the law in general about the guardianship over illegitimate daughters in Europe? Had they no guardians?
As it seem that your speciality is the 19th century, perhaps I can take the opportunity to ask a different question; about 19th-century Russia. I assume unmarried adult women were placed under guardianship there regardless of age, as they seem to have been in all countries in Europe with the exception of Great Britain. The European countries reformed their laws and removed the guardianship of unmarried women in the second half of the 19th-century. Was it the same for Russia? When did Russia abolish the guardianship of unmarried women? I assume in cirka 1900? --Aciram (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you for your reply. If you know of any wikipedians with this expertise, please feel free to give me a tip! Greetings--Aciram (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

question from a descendent of George I[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, John K. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Care to?[edit]

So, you have changed the names of roughly 15 of my close ancestors. Good, I'll be returning them to the correct form when I can be bothered to do so. Your assertion that double-barrelled names did not exist in the 17th c. is ludicrous, although fair enough that they seem to have been formalised in the 19th c. but only after long common usage in Great Britain and Ireland, never mind the rest of Europe. There's one other thing also, that WP in general fails to grasp, is that Peers do not 'have' a surname, rather they are known by the name of their fief, and it is their kin who possess the surname thereunto. Brendandh (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone on Talk:Duke of Hamilton appears to have disagreed with you about this. My moves have made these article titles in compliance with Complete Peerage, with Cracroft's Peerage, and for the most part with the ODNB. You have provided no sources, except the names on your ancestors' portraits at Lennoxlove House, to back your point. And please provide an example of another supposed double barreled surname in the 17th century. I have not seen a single source which says that William Douglas changed his surname to "Douglas-Hamilton," rather than to just "Hamilton." So far as I can tell, all the best sources show every duke through the 11th with the surname of simply "Hamilton." There seems to be some dispute about the 12th duke - his sister seems to have definitely remained Hamilton, his brother to have become Douglas-Hamilton, and sources disagree on him. All dukes since the 13th have certainly been "Douglas-Hamilton." If you have reliable sources to add to this, please do, but you can't revert these moves on the grounds that you know best without having any sources supporting your case. 130.91.119.121 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) [ETA - that was me of course. john k (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)]
If you need a Scottish example to show that peers do have a surname, in 1836 the Duke of Richmond and Lennox was granted "His Majesty's royal licence and authority that he and his issue may, in testimony of respect for the noble family of Gordon, henceforth assume, take, and use the surname of Gordon, in addition to, and before his and their own family surname of Lennox" (my emphasis). The London Gazette: no. 19409. p. 1441. 12 August 1836. Opera hat (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, there's plenty of examples like that. Peers certainly do have surnames, even if they don't normally use them. 98.111.161.5 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the projectwhat coordinators do) 09:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear John K

I noticed the improvements you have made to wiki pages for various military figures. I wonder If you could help improve the following wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Palmes

I am new to this, so have little experience.

Would be so grateful for your expertise.

Cheers,


Steve patterson 123 (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hello John K! I recently posted this question on the reference desk:[[11]] Is this field of knowledge within your expertise? Please feel free to answer! Best wishes--Aciram (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited In Our Time (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Out of Season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Country data Habsburg Monarchy > flag|Habsburg Monarchy[edit]

Hi, on Template:Country data Habsburg Monarchy, the flag of the Habsburg Monarchy is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_%28after_1400%29.svg
rather than the following one :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Flag_of_the_Habsburg_Monarchy.svg&page=1
Could you please replace it ? Thanks Hippo75 (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1832 in literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Le Colonel Chabert
1833 in literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ferragus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humphrey Marshall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Peter II of Yugoslavia recognised as 'King of Serbia' by the Nedic government?[edit]

Hello John K;

I noticed on the page "State Leaders in 1942"; that you added information (in 2005) pertaining to the collaborationist puppet government of Milan Nedic in Serbia acting in the name of King Petar II and Petar II being officially recognised as 'King of Serbia'. I was wondering if you had any sources as regards this; as I have only been able to find a handful; and these are inconclusive as regards to whether this was the case or not.

Yours,

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


I don't have any sources to hand. This was my understanding, but it's possible I was wrong. Remove it if you like. john k (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

In actual fact I'm leaning towards that being the case; I just need more sources. You must have got that notion from somewhere; I'm curious as to where :-)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say; it was seven years ago. john k (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Schneider (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Elephants[edit]

Please take this as a great compliment. --Dweller (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BuzzFeed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

New U.S. legislative data project[edit]

Hi there, John K! I'm working with a group of Wikipedians on a Legislative Data Workshop to explore ways of using legislative data to enhance Wikipedia, and since it's a subject area you've been active with, I figured you might like to know of it. We've set up a provisional WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data (WP:LEGDATA) where we're developing new ideas, so if you'd like to offer your views or help out, we'd love to have you join! Cheers, WWB (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mansur Ali Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Najafi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher and Post-Nominal PC[edit]

Hello, Just to let you know I undid an [edit] you made to Margaret Thatcher. Your reason for your edit said "No PC until she becomes a Baroness". This is not accurate as the post-nominal "PC" is granted when a person is sworn in to Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council and has nothing to do with being a Member of the Peerage. If you have any questions or believe that I am in error, let me know,

Cheers, Mate, King of Nothing (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the article "Privy Council of the United Kingdom" and it also incorrectly states that PC is not used unless a person is a British Peer; however, it uses as its source an article that talks about the Privy Council of New Zealand (as a Member of the New Zealand Privy Council would not be entitled to PC unless they are also a British Peer, which is true). My source is Debrett's, and you can't get much more accurate than that. However, I have neither the time nor the inclination to fix the now numerous instances of inaccurate use of the PC Post-nominal. Feel free to change it back if you wish. Or if you have the time, research whether PC is officially granted when a person is a Member of the British Privy Council and not a Peer (Even Debrett's says "In a social style of address for a peer who is a Privy Counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name. For all other Members of the Privy Council the pre-fix 'Rt Hon' before the name is sufficient identification." However, it is still proper for all Members to have PC). If you would like to research and make the necessary changes then Thank You. And if not then sorry to bother you. Either Way, Cheers Mate. With Thanks, <<As Always>>, King of Nothing (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
That is obvious nonsense from the top as there is no such thing as a "Privy Council of New Zealand". Your sentence "However, it is still proper for all Members to have PC" is your own conclusion based on nothing at the source. In fact, the language quoted points to precisely the opposite. The second sentence is an explanation of why the post-nominals aren't used for non-peers. And even if it weren't a hard and fast rule, it is the pervasive usage at Wikipedia. -Rrius (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother arguing about whether "PC" should be used for the first line of articles, when, for whatever stupid reason, Wikipedia has decreed that we can't use "Rt. Hon." before the person's name. Fine, use it then if you must, although it would be far better to use all the British honorific prefixes. But it absolutely should not be used in any case where "the Rt. Hon." is present, as in the "styles and titles" section or the infobox. john k (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adullamites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Laing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Wood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice[edit]

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Philadelphia Wiki-Picnic: Saturday, June 22[edit]

Wiknic logo.svg Philadelphia's Great American Wiknic at Penn Park Wiknic Boston group of six people June 23 2012.jpg
You are invited to the Philadelphia edition of the Great American Wiknic taking place in Penn Park, on Saturday, June 22, 2013! We would love to see you there!--User:Ocaasi (talk)|}}

About your doubt of the dual conference affiliation membership of the University of Rochester[edit]

About your doubt of the dual conference affiliation membership of the University of Rochester, did you try yet what I suggested, which was to ask the university's athletics department? jlog3000 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Real life prevents full engagement in Wikipedia issues on occasion. Someone should do it, though! john k (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
If you like, I'll try to investigate on your behalf and mine. jlog3000 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of American television series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conan the Adventurer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles deletion[edit]

Dear John K,

I apologize for the inconvenience, but have no other way than appealing for administrators’ help recover a deleted article.

I published a film article entitled Drits (Derivas), a film by Portuguese director Ricardo Costa. It is the second film from an autobiographic trilogy, Faraways. The article was kept untouched by several months. To my surprise, it was recently eliminated and redirected to the director’s page with no discussion. I undid the redirection, but saw the article was proposed to deletion. Reason: independent, verifiable, secondary resources. I argued that the article couldn’t have but primary sources (the producer’s ones) as it is an upcoming film, like many others listed at upcoming films. A film that has not yet been premiered or distributed may not be commented. Besides, none of the films so listed has ever been deleted or even contested.

At last, in discussion, user User:reddogsix proposed that the article should be renamed to Drifts (film) or similar, and at the same time put at the disambiguation page of Dritf this reference «Drifs, unreleased film by Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). I created a new page for the same article entitled Drifts (Portuguese film). As the semantic root “drift” seemed to be the problem, I replaced the article name to Derivas (Drifts) and published it once more with some improvements. As a result, the article was fast deleted and I blocked for three days.

In the meantime, a new article about the trilogy was published: Faraways, which was proposed to fast deletion as well by the same user, User:reddogsix.

Although unreleased, although having no reliable secondary sources, Drifts is unquestionably an outstanding film for its uniqueness and characteristics: autobiography, comedy, docufiction, metafiction in one. I guess that “outstanding” may be a synonym for “notable” in such cases and that articles like this shouldn’t be deleted without previous cared analyses: important information may be lost.

This sequence of interventions is clearly a personal attack by User:reddogsix, supported by two or three user friend. It has no other explanation. It contributes in nothing to improve articles quality. Mists article, which I created on 10 September 2010, is the latest example. The article structure was unreasonably modified, loosing clarity and useful content.

NOTE: sent to 30 administrators.

Thanks for your attention, User:Tertulius 21:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Edited your comment[edit]

Hi John,

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I edited your comment to try to make it a little clearer which position you were taking.

If you disagree with this edit, let me know, and I'll undo it immediately! NickCT (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing duplicate vital articles[edit]

Hi John, since you've been one of the most active contributors lately I thought I'd ask you for a favour. Tonight I'll be closing all discussions more than 15 days old; could you check out Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded#Business and Economics and vote for the two duplicated articles that have been proposed for removal? Thanks, Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Why can't duplicates just be removed without a vote? john k (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Phimosis[edit]

You made a comment to WT:NOT some time ago about the illustration in Phimosis. I made a response there, and implemented it with a cropped image (presently as CSS). Do you think this reasonably addresses the issue? Wnt (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1520, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palatinate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

GLAM Cafe invitation[edit]

GLAM coffee cup transparent.png Wikipedians are invited to the GLAM Café at the Chemical Heritage Foundation to meet, talk, and edit. We provide the space, the coffee, and the snacks: you provide ideas and enthusiasm! On the second Tuesday of each month, starting November 12, 2013.
CHF small logo

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC). Since you had some involvement with the Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (49 BC) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Assyrian kings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Belus, Babylonian, Naram-Sin and Cephalion

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

1418[edit]

In 2002, you added that the Siege of Rouen started in September, but what I'm finding says it instead started in July. I thought I'd let you know I'm editing it to July, in case you know something that I don't. --TripleU (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yacht Rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Perry. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)