User talk:Srnec

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

User talk:Srnec/Archive, 10 December 2005–8 January 2008
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 9 January–20 July 2008
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 21 July 2008–23 February 2009
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 24 February 2009–14 August 2009
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 August 2009–14 June 2010
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 15 June 2010–17 May 2011
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 18 May 2011–15 May 2013
User talk:Srnec/Archive, 16 May 2013–14 March 2014

User:Srnec/DYK

Clarification[edit]

Hi. I am just wondering why you feel that an infobox is unnecessary for Raymond IV of Pallars Jussà? Every biography I have worked on has had one and I find them very useful for getting a quick overview of the person in question. I thought the infobox, even with limited information, was quite useful as a reader, especially since the article is not organised in any way.Staranise (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel that infoboxes are generally unnecessary. There is certainly no requirement that articles have them, and no consensus on when they are appropriate. There are many editors who believe they are of limited use except in certain cases, and many editors who feel that all articles ought to have them. There is no consensus, but the onus is always on the editor adding to an article to prove the usefulness of his edit.
In biographical articles generally—and in the case of Raymond of Pallars particularly—the infobox contains nothing but genealogical information (parents and children) and data already present in the lede (like vital dates). Why does a list of his folks constitute an "overview of the person in question"? If name and dates is what you're looking for, read the first sentence. Infoboxes distract readers from the actual article and, since notability is not inherited (per our policies), the genealogical information they contain is unrelated to what makes the person notable enough for an article in the first place.
The article is organised, even if it doesn't have headings. The latter can be fixed quite easily (I just did). Srnec (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Catalan culture Challenge[edit]

Hello! I've seen that you are one of the main editors of the Abbot Oliba article and I just want to inform you that the article is featured at the the Catalan Culture Challenge, a Wikipedia editing contest in which victory will go to those who start and improve the greatest number of articles about 50 key figures of Catalan culture. It goes from March 16 to April 15. You can take part by creating or expanding articles on these people in your native language (or any other one you speak). It would be lovely to have you on board. :-) Amical Wikimedia --Kippelboy (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gales of Dampierre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dampierre (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, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We've gotten off on the wrong foot[edit]

I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot. You said this on the history page of the "Italian governorate of Montenegro" article: "here's how it's done - and since you have read the talk page, your question about sources is disingenuous". Why are you engaging in such attacks against me? I said that multiple claims in the article need sources, I thought that was fine considering that the page has few sources. No I have not read the entirety of the talk page. The issue is that the claims made in the article need references to support them.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A tag atop the article says, "This article needs additional citations for verification." So why does it need "citation needed" tags throughout? It has one big "citations needed" tag at the top.
In your first edit summary, you wrote, "There are no citations for many of assertions made here. From the talk page, it appears that the users agreed to use this name as some kind of compromise - that does not make it the legal name of this entity. This is not acceptable." Since you are aware of the recent talk page discussion about the title, it is disingenuous to ask in a later edit summary, "What sources say that it was named as shown?"—because the sources were presented on the talk page. Should they be added to the article, and the issue of naming cleard up? Absolutely, but the tag at the top already does the job of a million little tags. And since you read the talk page, you could add the sources used yourself if you were motivated. The sources used in the previous version of the article do not show that "Independent State of Montenegro" was the name of Montenegro under Italian rule. More sources are needed on the issue of naming, but since Montenegro was undoubtedly governed by Italy and was not an independent state, the current title is best. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[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 Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Troupes coloniales may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • empire. This force played a substantial role in the conquest of the empire, in [[World War I]], [[[World War II]], the [[First Indochina War]] and the [[Algerian War]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:French intervention in Mexico infobox[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:French intervention in Mexico infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[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.

Austro-Hungarian campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to 5th Corps, 3rd Corps, 4th Corps, Hafiz Pasha, Novi Grad, Kostajnica and Gradiška
Othon de la Roche (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Livadia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Median lethal dose[edit]

My apologies, I only meant to take out the "commonly due to allergic reactions" in regards to cases of rapid death time (20-30 mins). This was added by a disruptive IP editor before I had the article protected. I've never read a case in which a mamba victim died due to allergic reaction. In anycase, I added the median lethal dose link back into the lead. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 21:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rodrigo Fernández de Castro, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Battle of Uclés, Ávila and Almonacid (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) 08:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aurunca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Festus (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) 09:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

French Somaliland in WWII[edit]

Hi Srnec,

Really good job with the re-write at French Somaliland in World War II! I hope you don't mind, but I have tweaked the title to "in" rather than your original "during" to comply with the general trend in similar articles (see the template at the bottom). All the best! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I belatedly saw this message after leaving a message on the talk page. Personally, I prefer "during" for the reasons I state there. But thank you! There is still information to add, if I can track it down in reliable sources. There is very little I can find about the "air war" during June 1940 that I believe occurred. Srnec (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Titles in titles of articles[edit]

Hello Srnec, I've busy in other projects but before that, and whenever I can, I've been moving some of the articles on Portuguese royals/nobles when the title of the article per se is something like, Infante SoandSo, count of... . I think we should have some clear guidelines and not just discussions in a wikiproject. All of these I think should be "standardized". I would opt for dates after the name whenever possible John of Portugal (1300-1350), but if these dates are not confirmed, perhaps something like, John of Portugal, Count of Viseu (I'm inventing the names right now). There is so much confusion with all of these Portuguese nobles and trying to find them is quite difficult. I would definitely delete the nobility/royal titles from the title of the article. What do you think? Regards, --Maragm (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also prefer dates, but there seems to be a consensus against them (except where there is no other option). If you move enough articles to dates, you can expect pushback. In this case, however, there might be an argument that dates are the least confusing option. Titles preceding the name (like Infante) should definitely go, but titles (like Count of Viseu) that come after the name, separated by a comma or in parentheses, are acceptable. If there were more than one "John of Portugal, Count of Viseu", then dates would be preferrable or, if there is some other distinguishing mark, then perhaps a parenthetical disambiguator like "John of Portugal (historian)"—obviously, I'm making this up. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go over the articles when I have free time and move as per your indications, putting the dates as a last resource. The other thing I forgot to mention is prince/ess vs. infante/a. Most, if not all sources on Spanish/Portuguese royals, call them infantes and I see that some of the Portuguese royals have been called prince/ess. I'm not sure about the more modern ones, but I think all those from the Middle Ages should be called infantes, particularly in the title of the article. --Maragm (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French Somaliland in World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fighting France (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) 08:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[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 Nick-D (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Our interaction etc.[edit]

It seems we have both been around for years and years, but I think we started to interact only recently. This interaction has been fruitful in some instances, I seem to remember that we collaborated well in Crimea topics when these articles were in crisis.

So I would now want to seek reasonable discussion before we begin to waste effort in editorial disputes over what amounts more to questions of content arrangement than actual content.

I pay you the compliment of treating you as a well-educated, grown up editor. In our recent discussion on Talk:Kingdom of France, I agree completely with the factual points you raise, and I am perfectly willing to be influenced by your opinion. I am in complete agreement with your elaboration on the development of "statehood" here,

If the kingdom of France did not exist in 843—which in one important sense (the concept of France) I am willing to admit—then when did it come to be? Well before 987. Even after the events 887–88 (deposition and death of Charles the Fat), the French kingdom remained in tact: Aquitaine recognised the authority of the same king as Neustria. What might well have seemed likely to be ephemeral in 843 had become permanent within a generation.

This is of course the problem we will have with each and every article on "states", or polilitical entities, or "former countries", or whatever you want to call it, in pre-modern times. And not only pre-modern, as evidenced in the case of Crimea, Kosovo, etc., unlike the mere declaration of statehood (which can be done by any group of people sitting in a room), the "existence" of a state is not something that can be pinned down exactly.

This is not a problem, as long as everyone remains aware of the fuzzy nature of the terms involved in all of this. The problem with Wikipedia is that many involved editors either do not, or else choose to use this fuziness selectively because they have an agenda.

I propose that both you and I have the great benefit of being aware of the nature of the problem, and are not burdened by a political agenda. This means that our collaboration would be of high value to the articles affected. Because of this, I would want to avoid if at all possible that we end up wasting time and our nerves over pointess disputes on presentation.

Which brings me to the "infobox" question. I am the last person to have fixed opinion on infoboxes, and I do think that they are often part of the problem, especially when they suggest clean "cut off dates" for historical periods. But we already know that these cut-off dates are editorial choices. Kingdom of France has an infobox suggesting a "cut off" in 843. We both know that this is arbitrary, but we also know that any other date will be at least as arbitrary, and that if we want to have meaningful coverage on historical periods, there is no way around choosing such cut off dates regardless. These are editorial decisions which should be taken after informed discussion just like the one we had about France.

Now you brought up the template name of "Former Country". Can we please agree that this is a red herring? This is just what the template in question happens to be named internally. The template is in wide use to simply cover meaningful historical periods. As in the articles on the history of the Byzantine Empire, such as Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty (etc.) Nobody claims that the "Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty" was a "former country" in the sense that there was no continuity, or a complete replacement of governance or statehood between it and either the Byzantine Empire under the Isaurian dynasty or the Byzantine Empire under the Komnenos dynasty. It is still meaningful to break up the main Byzantine Empire article into such articles on historical periods.

The longer and more complicated the history of a state or empire, the more important it will be to maintain a clean division of articles on such sub-periods. The Byzantine Empire is an excellent example for this, because its history is literally "byzantine". But the same principle applies to any monarchy lasting for centuries on end, including the Kingdom of Portugal and the Kingdom of France, etc. etc. Case in point, in my recent efforts in cleaning up Iberian topics have "discovered" an article on Spain in the 17th century which has been around since 2011, but which has remained completly unlinked, and thus unnoted, in its WP:SS "super-topics" of both Habsburg Spain and History of Spain. Content duplication is one of the serious problems when trying to maintain large topics like "History of $COUNTRY", and a clean division into historical periods which are cleanly linked to one another is a way to reduce it. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a problem, as long as everyone remains aware of the fuzzy nature of the terms involved in all of this. The problem with Wikipedia is that many involved editors either do not, or else choose to use this fuzziness selectively because they have an agenda.
I agree. This is why it can be difficult to adjudicate any disputes by appealing to sources. Academics do not have to worry as much about such matters. But it is more than just some editors who might not understand fuzziness (perhaps because of an agenda)—our readers may not get it either, and they are likely to be less informed or educated than ourselves.
I propose that both you and I have the great benefit of being aware of the nature of the problem, and are not burdened by a political agenda.
I agree. I claim no political agenda, and I don't see on in your edits either.
But we already know that these cut-off dates are editorial choices. Kingdom of France has an infobox suggesting a "cut off" in 843. We both know that this is arbitrary, but we also know that any other date will be at least as arbitrary, and that if we want to have meaningful coverage on historical periods, there is no way around choosing such cut off dates regardless.
I would not agree on the equality of arbitrariness. (I'm not sure "arbitrary" is even the right word here.) The formation of the kingdom of France was a process that is not completely understood nor can be on existing evidence, but we do know quite a bit about what was done (and when) to bring it about. The date of 843 is essentially the earliest date on which the geographical entity that would become known France came into being under one king. I regard that as making an excellent start date—although it does not represent when the notion of "France" came into being. It is also important to note that no subsequent event reversed that of 843: the same division of Europe (roughly) under a succession of monarchs existed down to the revolution.
Now you brought up the template name of "Former Country". Can we please agree that this is a red herring? This is just what the template in question happens to be named internally. The template is in wide use to simply cover meaningful historical periods.
Yes, the template name itself doesn't matter. But it wasn't named arbitarily. I suspect readers will sometimes (often?) be misled into thinking that the dates we have chosen for dividing our coverage represent points of constitutional change.
It is still meaningful to break up the main Byzantine Empire article into such articles on historical periods.
I have no problem with that—but I think the infobox format suggests a kind of succession of constitutions or states, much the same way "First Spanish Republic" and "Third French Republic" do. Why use the same inobox for two very different purposes? Srnec (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

India[edit]

Hi, nice to see you again.

There is a consensus to include India in the puppet & client category, as shown by the archive. If you want to revert, please address the arguments there, either here, on the article talk page, or on my talk page. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 01:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That short discussion does not at all represent consensus. Look at various recent edit summaries to see that. Srnec (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
What recent? You removed "clients & puppets" 3 months ago. walk victor falk talk 02:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
An attempt to list India as a colony was reverted recently by another editor. How does a talk between you and one other editor represent a consensus? Srnec (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WWII infobox[edit]

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 03:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:France_during_World_War_II[edit]

Did you check the talk page? walk victor falk talk 23:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Not assuming you didn't, just curious about your opinion about people's opinion that there should be an article. walk victor falk talk 23:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to an article. The topic, however, is huge. This is not the way to tackle the job. I would be happy to help in any way I can on improving our coverage of France in World War II and/or by building this article—but I am going to be away for the next couple weeks, so I can't do anything in the immediate future. Srnec (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[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 Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers[edit]

Hi Srnec,

Would you by any chance have some page numbers to add to your cites on French prisoners of war in World War II? I don't have access to the source. All the best! Brigade Piron (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not. I do not have access to the PDF or print version of the Rochat article, but I did link to an online version, which can be cited by paragraph (but I don't know how to do that with "sfn" footnotes). The online version is free; the link is in the bibliography. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You've been.....[edit]

...reported and I see that you were not notified. Cheers, --Maragm (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A belated thanks for the notification. It seems it was speedily dealt with. Srnec (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome...next thing, I'll be accused of being your sockpuppet. By the way, I wanted to mention that in the article on Fernando Rodríguez de Castro, Martín is mentioned as a legitimate son, but he was not. You can check the Spanish version where I added as a reference, Menéndez Pidal, which can be checked online. In a donation made in 1241, Pedro Martínez declares that he is the son of Martín Fernández, grandson of Fernán Roiz el Castellano, and donates a property which he had inherited from María Íñiguez, his grandmother and mother of his father Martín. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[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 Nick-D (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


World War 2 info box change[edit]

There is a discussion about belligerents order for WWII in the talk page [1] which challenge previous consensus. Based on this discussion, some editors changed the Template:WW2InfoBox. Current change (infobox) are ranking USA above United Kingdom, ranking France above China and adding the leaders of Romania and Hungary into Info box. I thought you should know, as you seem to join the previous discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.172.57 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Muslim conquests[edit]

Hey, Srnec, I was wondering whether you could possibly offer your input on the recent changes - and reverts of those changes - on the Muslim conquests article. Thank you very much for your time. Torontas (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Muslim Conquests[edit]

Thanks for the source! JSTOR? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Battle of Yarmuk one, yes. F. M. Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: 1981), 185, states that the main point of Khalid's campaigning in Iraq was the subjugation of the Christian tribes along the Euphrates. It's quite confusing, though, to match sources up on account of the varying transliterations of Arabic place names and the sometimes confused chronology of the primary sources. I can find no mention of Firaz in Donner, but it is clear (just like in that US military publication I linked to) that they are talking about the same action: Khalid's last before moving out of Iraq. Srnec (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Very nice. Oddly, Pourshariati states Al-Muthanna was at Firaz(Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire, p201-202), not Khalid. Go figure. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-American bias against the Italian war effort[edit]

Hi Srnec,

I suggest you read James Sadkovich and more recent authors. Can I email you a sample of some of his work? Forget about Seca. There is a strong historiography against the Italians. There are clear double standards to the point where their successes are turned into failures, where they are criticized relentlessly in every conceivable way, and their failures are amplified out of all proportion. Now rest assured that if the Italians were actually fighting on the side of the allies, the eventual victors, then there would have been a flood of praise for Italy from historians, where modest victories would be rewritten as great ones, and Italian defeats would have been quietly hushed up or glossed over.

Even when Italy eventually occupy two-thirds of Greece and its islands, even this is seen as a "failure" because their allies, the Germans, helped them out. Using this yard-stick, the British should be measured as failures too because they had the Americans get them out of a hole of their own making in North Africa, and the Russians helping them tying up 90% of the German army and air force. So whatever victories the British may have had, if we use the same yardstick that is used for the Italians, are really questionable indeed.AnnalesSchool (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read James Sadkovich and more recent authors. Can I email you a sample of some of his work? Forget about Seca.
I am familiar with Sadkovich and have access to many of his papers, but none of his books. I've read some of him, and some reviews of his books. If you have something you do not think I have access to, you may email it to me. My email should be enabled.
Forget about Seca.
My concern with the Italian invasion of France article is to get the actual battle fleshed out in detail. I have no reason to believe Seca will get his facts wrong about that.
There is a strong historiography against the Italians.
I completely agree. I think it is mainly a legacy of wartime British propaganda (portraying the Italians as incompetents next to the evil Germans). I can't really blame the British for this, though.
Using this yard-stick, the British should be measured as failures too because they had the Americans get them out of a hole of their own making in North Africa, and the Russians helping them tying up 90% of the German army and air force.
The British often do get overlooked in American historiography (my impression). The British feat in keeping alive in 1940–41 is quite impressive. British defeat Asia in 1941–42 is as bad as anything the Italian suffered. Srnec (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War of the Cow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walloon (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) 08:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Srnec, Thanks for your help with the cleanups around the House of Savoy, particularly on the references. I'll try to learn from your examples to do it better in the future. Also, thanks for the tip on Garsenda, I've reverted my changes that I had made. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 5 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agnes of Aquitaine[edit]

Europaische Stammtafeln has the wife of Ramiro as an illegitimate daughter of the Duke of Aquitaine, not the one who married the count of Thouars. I'd love to see your sources, the article isn't well referenced. Suggest we discuss on talk page. 24.27.2.204 (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[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 Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thai royal and noble titles[edit]

You are the last registered user to amend the current article, which, absent a good reason not to, I intend to revert to my version of 14:34, 16 September 2013‎. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. Just restore the hatnote. Srnec (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fernando García de Hita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry of Portugal. 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) 08:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3[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.

Bertrand du Guesclin
added a link pointing to Bougie
Rangoon riots (1930)
added a link pointing to Strike

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Lets discuss your proposed merger.[edit]

Talk:Prisoner in the Vatican#Merge. Clr324 04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr324 (talkcontribs)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean de Werchin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ballade. 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) 09:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[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 Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Legislative Assembly double[edit]

Hi, there are 2 articles on the same subject Louis XVI and the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Assembly (France). Could it be done something about that? I think you have some knowledge and experience in such things. Definitely it is better to have just one, I think. All the best!--Nivose (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(2nd) Siege of Coria[edit]

Hi, Srnec! First I want to thank you for your insightul and extremely detailed articles in medieval Europe. I am traslating your Siege of Coria (1142) article into spanish (here), and I've 2 things to question:

  1. When the text refers to "the sucessful 1141 siege"... Could it actually mean 1142? (the year of the siege)
  2. According to online sources (Miranda Calvo 120-121) I've handled Coria was taken in 1079 by Alfonso VI before (not after) the reconquista of Toledo in 1085 (to fall afterwards (circa 1110-1113), as the wiki article says after the death of Alfonso in 1109) .

Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Three times the article said "1141" when it meant "1142". I checked the sources and it must just be a bad typo. I have corrected all instances to "1142".
You are also right about the date of the first conquest of Coria (1079, at the beginning of the series of conquests culminating with Toledo in 1085, not after). I've corrected this in the article as well. It's always good to have my mistakes caught. Srnec (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Notitia de servitio monasteriorum[edit]

Your correction to the Savigny monastery seems correct, but why the Schönau one? The Schönau you picked is even further from Bavaria than the one linked. Lesne, the source for the list, places the Schönau in question in the diocese of Ratisbon (Regensburg). Srnec (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Good evening,
Yes, you're right, but Schönau is a cistercian one, created in the beginning of the 12th century. It's why I changed for the other Schönau, witch is benedictine. But you're right when you write that the one I picked isn't in Bavaria. Maybe there's another Schönau I don't know, and therefore I've been wrong. Well, I don't know exactly what to do now... (excuse me for my poor english, I'm French). --Laurent Jerry (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[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.

Rudolf Hellgrewe
added a link pointing to Hermann von Wissmann
Theobald of Étampes
added a link pointing to Royal domain

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)